The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps own 1.26 undeveloped acres. On June 28, 1986, Ps and D entered into a one-year option contract for the sale of the property. The option provides in part: This option may be accepted by either said second party or his assigns at any time on or before the 28th day of June, 1987, by giving written notice thereof to said first party. It also provides that if '[D] or his assigns, are unable to obtain an ordinance or permit from the proper authorities to conduct second party's or his assign's business upon said premises, . . . this option or the contract arising by reason of the acceptance of this option, may at the election of said second party or his assigns, become null and void and said second party and his assigns shall be relieved of all liability hereunder.' On June 10, 1987, D, by letter, notified Ps he was exercising the option 'subject to all terms of the option'; the letter did not specify a closing date. Ps' attorney informed D in a July 15, 1987, letter that because the transaction had not been closed by June 28, 1987, the option had expired and D had 'no further contractual rights in this matter.' One week later, D's attorney responded in a letter: 'It is D's position that upon exercise of the Option, a contract has been formed to purchase the property between D and Ps. No dates are set forth in the Option with regard to the closing of the contract formed by its exercise or the elimination of the zoning contingency and the time for closing.' D assigned his interest in the property to Ten-Eighteen, a 'shell corporation.' On February 16, 1988, D entered into an option contract with Shell Oil for the sale of the Ps' property. Shell Oil filed a petition for rezoning of the property on June 8, 1988. Ps denied D had any legal or equitable interest in the property, and demanded D 'record an appropriate affidavit or quit claim deed renouncing any interest in the property . . . .' Shell Oil withdrew its petition for rezoning in February 1989. In a February 2, 1989, letter, D's attorney notified Ps that D would close the transaction on March 16, 1989. On March 24, 1989, Ps filed this quiet title action. Ds filed a counterclaim for specific performance of the sale contract. In reply, Ps asserted that Ds' claim was 'barred by breach of contract and by laches.' The trial court entered judgment for Ps and against Ds on the counterclaim. Ps got the verdict, and Ds appealed.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.